Authenticated async GPT-5.6-sol Agent agent with status polling and artifact results.
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool targets a distinct action on the run lifecycle: info (metadata), create, cancel, get status, and get result. The only near-pair, get_run_status vs get_run_result, is cleanly separated by descriptions (state polling vs final summary/artifacts).
All tools share the agentfarm_ namespace prefix followed by a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_run, cancel_run, get_run_status, get_run_result, agent_info). No style mixing; the pattern is immediately predictable.
Five tools map exactly onto an async run lifecycle (create, poll status, fetch result, cancel, plus identity metadata). Each tool earns its place with no redundancy or bloat.
The core create→poll→result→cancel flow is fully covered, plus an info call. A list_runs operation to enumerate or discover prior runs is absent, a minor gap agents can work around by tracking IDs themselves.
Returns this agent's identity, listed per-task price, MCP endpoint, and access URL. This metadata call does not run the model and does not require a bearer token; execution consumes prepaid run units.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: no bearer token required for this call, and the billing distinction that only execution consumes prepaid run units. It stops short of describing response shape or any rate/caching behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero filler. The returned fields are front-loaded and the caveats (no model run, no token, billing) follow immediately after.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-param read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned plus the auth and billing quirks an agent needs. A minor gap remains around response format/timestamp freshness, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Returns') and enumerates the exact resource contents: identity, per-task price, MCP endpoint, and access URL. This is trivially distinguishable from the run-lifecycle siblings (create/cancel/status/result), which the agent can rule out without opening any schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the preconditions for calling it ('does not run the model and does not require a bearer token') and contrasts that with execution, which 'consumes prepaid run units'. That implies this is the cheap metadata lookup to perform before agentfarm_create_run, but it never names that alternative explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Cancels an authenticated queued or running run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | AgentFarm run identifier. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a meaningful constraint—only queued or running runs can be cancelled—but does not disclose what happens after cancellation (e.g., irreversible, async, effect on results). This adds some value but not rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It conveys the action, resource, and constraint efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, destructive, idempotent tool, the schema and annotations cover most of what an agent needs. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not mention what the tool returns after a successful cancel or how errors (e.g., run already finished) are surfaced, which would be useful but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the sole parameter run_id with 100% description accuracy ('AgentFarm run identifier'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Cancels'), a resource ('AgentFarm run'), and a scope qualifier ('authenticated queued or running'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_run, get_run_status, and get_run_result, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is only for queued or running runs, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Context about siblings is present in the signal data but not referenced in the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Queues an authenticated asynchronous task. This can consume paid model capacity. Poll with agentfarm_get_run_status, then read agentfarm_get_run_result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | Task for the agent to complete. | |
| task_input | No | Optional JSON-compatible context or input data for the task. | |
| idempotency_key | No | Optional retry key; the same key and input return the original run. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the task is authenticated, asynchronous, and can consume paid model capacity. It also communicates the expected lifecycle (queue, poll, read), which is valuable context not available from the annotations or schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with the core action first and the cost/usage context second. It avoids filler, states the most important operational facts, and is well front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an async creation tool with no output schema, this description covers the key operational facts: queue, auth, cost, and the follow-up polling/reading workflow using named siblings. The only minor omission is an explicit statement of what create_run returns (e.g., a run identifier), though this is strongly implied by the polling instructions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents task, task_input, and idempotency_key thoroughly. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Queues') with a clear resource ('an authenticated asynchronous task') and immediately distinguishes the tool from its siblings by naming the polling and result-reading tools. An agent can tell this creates/runs a task rather than inspecting or canceling it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly names agentfarm_get_run_status and agentfarm_get_run_result and ties them to the post-creation workflow ('Poll with..., then read...'). This gives the agent a clear sequence and identifies which sibling tools are used after creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns the final summary and artifact download URLs for an authenticated run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | AgentFarm run identifier. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'authenticated' prerequisite and specifies that it returns final summary and artifact URLs, which gives useful context about what the tool does beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately states the output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-style tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description adequately covers the return content. It does not explain error handling or prerequisites beyond 'authenticated', but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the absent output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes run_id as 'AgentFarm run identifier' with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter details, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names the resource ('final summary and artifact download URLs') for an authenticated run. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like agentfarm_get_run_status by focusing on the final result rather than status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for an authenticated run' provides clear context that this tool is used after a run has been executed and requires authentication. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the distinction from sibling tools is implicit through the 'final' wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns queued, running, succeeded, or failed status for an authenticated run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | AgentFarm run identifier. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'authenticated run' requirement, which is not in the annotations, and lists the specific status values returned, providing meaningful context beyond structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key information (what it returns) and specifies the exact statuses. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only status-checking tool with one parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: it clarifies the run status values and the authentication requirement. Nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter run_id with a clear description ('AgentFarm run identifier'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline set by the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and the resource ('status for an authenticated run'), enumerating the possible values (queued, running, succeeded, failed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agentfarm_get_run_result (which likely retrieves run data) and agentfarm_create_run (which creates runs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking run status, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_run_result or get_run_info. No exclusion criteria or scenario guidance is provided, making it adequate but not highly instructive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
agentfarm_cancel_runagentfarm_create_run1 field changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional retry key; the same key and input return the original run.",
+ "maxLength": 128,
+ "type": "string"
+}agentfarm_agent_infoagentfarm_create_runagentfarm_get_run_resultagentfarm_get_run_statusAuthenticated async GPT-6 Sol agent with status polling and artifact results.
Authenticated async GPT-5.6-luna Agent agent with status polling and artifact results.
Authenticated async Sonnet 5 Agent agent with status polling and artifact results.
Authenticated async GPT-6 Astra agent with status polling and artifact results.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
